Search This Blog

question the correctness of the market value arrived at by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad for their lands, which stood acquired for a public purpose=There are no special circumstances to apply the higher multiplier of 12 or 13 or the lower multiplier of 8. Having regard to the evidence in regard to the nature, standard and position of the orchard, we are of the view that the standard multiplier of 10 should be applied. Therefore, the compensation would be Rs.94,500 x 10, that is, Rs.9,45,000/- for the entire extent of 4 acres 38 cents (land with the trees). The general trend as noticed by the Supreme Court (emphasis is applied) is that the applying multiplier has ranged between 10 to 12 for agricultural crop land, but, however, where there is no specific evidence brought on record with regard to the good nature of land or its superior standards from the point of view of the yield or the other advantageous positions, such as proximate location to agricultural mandis or purchasers taking up the crop at the agricultural farm itself without any necessity to the farmer to incur any expenditure for transportation of the produce etc., the Supreme Court has viewed it appropriate to apply the multiplier 10 to the average annual income/yield. We are, therefore, of the view that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Civil Court have both erred in applying the multiplier 3 and 4 respectively while working out the capitalisation method for determining the market value of the lands acquired in the instant case. On the other hand, the average annual income of Rs.2,250/- arrived at should have been multiplied by 10 and consequently the market value should have been fixed at Rs.22,500/- per acre by the Civil Court. We, therefore, follow the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Ramakrishna Reddys case (third cited supra) and substitute the market value arrived at by the Civil Court in its judgment under appeal as Rs.22,500/- per acre. The rest of the order and decree, as it is, is approved. Since the notification under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 was published on 20th August 1997, it goes without saying that the claimants are also entitled for all statutory benefits, such as solatium, additional market value and interest with effect from 19.09.2001 on the aforementioned two benefits namely additional market value and solatium as held in Sunder v. Union of India . Accordingly, the Appeals are allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.

COMMON - JUDGMENT: (per Honble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao)
These appeals are preferred by the claimants in O.P.Nos.89 &
87 of 1999 respectively under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short the Act), calling in question the correctness of
the market value arrived at by the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Adilabad for their lands, which stood acquired for a public purpose.
The State Government has acquired lands of an extent of
Ac.10-02 cents out of total extent of Ac.12-04 cents, which belong
to the private individuals while the balance land is that of the
Government itself, for the formation of a water tank. The State
Government approved the acquisition through their G.O.Rt.
No.1819 dated 19th August 1997 and hence, the notification under
Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act was published on
20th August 1997. The Land Acquisition Officer, before finalising
his award, has undertaken inspection of the lands and noticed that
the claimants are raising red gram and cotton crops in the lands in
question and thus, these lands are put to use for agricultural
operations. The Land Acquisition Officer has also ascertained the
necessary data for arriving at the possible income that could be
derived annually from these lands. He has also ascertained the
market value of the cotton and noticed that during the years
1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97, the value is @ Rs.2,008/-,
Rs.1,720/- and Rs.1,671/- respectively per quintal. As per similar
data relating to red gram, it was noticed that the value ranged
between Rs.1,075/- to Rs.1,350/- per quintal. Since both the
varieties of crops are raised in these lands, the Land Acquisition
Officer has taken an average of these prices and worked it out to be
around Rs.1,800/- per quintal for cotton and Rs.1,283/- per
quintal for the yield of red gram. The Land Acquisition Officer has
also noticed that on an average Per acre, the yield can be of two
quintals of cotton and half quintal of red gram. Thus, he has taken
the yield from cotton annually to be of Rs.3,600/-, and from the red
gram to be of Rs.642/- and thus put together totalling to
Rs.4,242/-. Thereafter, he has deducted 50% thereof towards the
expenses that are likely to be incurred on each acre for cultivating.
Thus, he has arrived at the net income from each acre of the land
to be Rs.2,121/-. Adopting the capitalisation method, he has
multiplied it with 3 and worked out the value to be an order of
Rs.6,363/- and hence, considered it as appropriate to fix the
market value of the land to be Rs.6,000/- per acre.
Aggrieved by this fixation of the market value, the claimants
have preferred references before the Civil Court for appropriate
fixation under Section 18 of the Act and claimed the market value
to be Rs.13,000/- per acre.
During the course of trial, Exs.A1, A2 and A3 have been
exhibited to establish that the claimants are raising red gram crop,
which is recorded in Ex.A1 Pahani and similarly the red gram crop
so realised have been marketed to the Agricultural Market
Committee of the area, which has issued takpatties under Exs.A2 &
A3. Thus, it is proved beyond any doubt that the lands that stood
acquired have been yielding cotton and red gram and there was
also no further dispute that they are able to realise two quintals of
cotton per acre and similarly the yield of red gram is not less than
half quintal per acre. Further, there is also no dispute with regard
to the purchase prices of cotton and red gram during the three year
period preceeding the year of acquisition i.e., 1997. This apart, we
also find that the deduction of 50% towards the costs of
agricultural operations per acre is reasonable and fair though one
might tend to believe that the costs of operation would be in the
range of 30% to 40% only. In view of the reasonable and fair
approach adopted by both the Land Acquisition Officer and the
Civil Court, we approve the method of deducting 50% of the yield
towards costs of agricultural operations. When so adopted, there is
no question of denying the fact that the net value for the purpose of
applying the multiplier method per acre would work out to the
order of Rs.2,250/-.
But, however, what remains to be examined is whether the
Land Acquisition Officer is justified in adopting multiplier 3 and
whether the Civil Court is justified in applying the multiplier 4 for
working out the market value by the capitalisation method.
The Honble Supreme Court had occasion to consider this
question in Union of India v. Shanti Devi and State of Gujrat v.
Rama Rana . The Honble Supreme Court in Shanti Devis case
(first cited supra) has taken the view that the application of
multiplier 13 would be appropriate for determining the market
value of the income derived from agricultural lands by the method
of capitalisation. Once again, when a similar question has fallen
for consideration in Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool District
v. M. Ramakrishna Reddy the Honble Supreme Court after
noticing the earlier judgment rendered by it, has concluded the
issue in paragraphs 9 & 10 in the following manner.
9. This Court has considered this issue in several
decisions - State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh [1995
Supp (2) SCC 637], Land Acquisition Officer v.
Madivalappa Basalingappa Melavanki [(1995) 5 SCC
670], State of Gujarat v. Rama Rana [(1997) 2 SCC
693], Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Malik Sartaj Wali
Khan [(2001) 10 SCC 660] and Airports Authority of
India v. Satyagopal Roy [(2002) 3 SCC 527]. In
Madivalappa Basalingappa Melavanki [(1995) 5 SCC
670], this Court held that generally a multiplier of 10
would be appropriate but depending on the special
facts and circumstances, the multiplier may vary. In
Rama Rana [(1997) 2 SCC 693] and Krishi Utpadan
Mandi Samiti [(2001) 10 SCC 660], this Court adopted
a multiplier of 10. In Gurcharan Singh [1995 Supp (2)
SCC 637] and Airports Authority of India[(2002) 3 SCC
527], this Court applied a multiplier of 8 for arriving at
the market value of orchard land. The general trend is
to adopt a multiplier of 8 to 10 in regard to plantations,
fruit groves and orchards and a multiplier ranging from
10 to 12 to agricultural crop land.
10. There are no special circumstances to apply the
higher multiplier of 12 or 13 or the lower multiplier of 8.
Having regard to the evidence in regard to the nature,
standard and position of the orchard, we are of the
view that the standard multiplier of 10 should be
applied. Therefore, the compensation would be
Rs.94,500 x 10, that is, Rs.9,45,000/- for the entire
extent of 4 acres 38 cents (land with the trees).
The general trend as noticed by the Supreme Court (emphasis
is applied) is that the applying multiplier has ranged between 10 to
12 for agricultural crop land, but, however, where there is no
specific evidence brought on record with regard to the good nature
of land or its superior standards from the point of view of the yield
or the other advantageous positions, such as proximate location to
agricultural mandis or purchasers taking up the crop at the
agricultural farm itself without any necessity to the farmer to incur
any expenditure for transportation of the produce etc., the Supreme
Court has viewed it appropriate to apply the multiplier 10 to the
average annual income/yield. We are, therefore, of the view that
the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Civil Court have both
erred in applying the multiplier 3 and 4 respectively while
working out the capitalisation method for determining the market
value of the lands acquired in the instant case. On the other hand,
the average annual income of Rs.2,250/- arrived at should have
been multiplied by 10 and consequently the market value should
have been fixed at Rs.22,500/- per acre by the Civil Court. We,
therefore, follow the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in
Ramakrishna Reddys case (third cited supra) and substitute the
market value arrived at by the Civil Court in its judgment under
appeal as Rs.22,500/- per acre. The rest of the order and decree, as
it is, is approved.
Since the notification under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 was
published on 20th August 1997, it goes without saying that the
claimants are also entitled for all statutory benefits, such as
solatium, additional market value and interest with effect from
19.09.2001 on the aforementioned two benefits namely additional
market value and solatium as held in Sunder v. Union of India .
Accordingly, the Appeals are allowed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall
stand closed.

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9th August, 2012Judgment: The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable =in VadirajNaggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (supra), it is held as follows: "17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness underOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion oron an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicatedhereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in theevidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear anyambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course,if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimatedecision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court topermit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permis…

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land
on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2
and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease
to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a
document …